Re: Ash of Stars

Russell Blackford's essays were the only ones I had no use for in Ash 
of Stars. They seemed clueless.

 From my 1999 Amazon review:
"While one essay ("Debased and Lascivious?: Samuel R. Delany's Stars 
in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand" by Russell Blackford) displays 
nothing more than its author's ignorance of the realities of 
contemporary urban gay life (wherein all of the social constructs 
Blackford dismisses as unrealistic and unbelievable actually obtain 
today), it is the exception in a volume that is otherwise 
fascinating, revelatory and worthy of its challenging subject."

At 9:24 AM -0400 10/18/11, [email protected] wrote:
>I have yet to respond to the previous poster, but this reminds me of
>one of the two essays on STARS IN MY POCKET LIKE GRAINS OF SAND,
>"Debased and Lascivious?" by Russell Blackford. Blackford addresses
>not only the question of moral assumptions but also the question of
>disgust. This clarifies for me the brilliance of what Delany has
>accomplished and where I part company. Literature is not real life, so
>one can't assume the author endorses what he writes about, but life is
>not neutral, it demands judgment and boundaries, and so I think we've
>reached the limit of what can be contemplated.
>
>   On a more general note, I think that for thoughtful people who grew
>up before the Reagan era, we are living in a retrospective age,
>investigating and highlighting all the (different) assumptions of the
>past. I am more likely to read something of that than something
>futuristic, since (1) I don't think there is any future, (2) the
>distance between the future and the assumptions of hi tech media
>culture today is so minuscule that imagination has lost its function.
>
>On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:01:17 -0600, Jorge Rapalo wrote:
>
>                While I understand the value of exploring the extremist
>behavior that
>probes at the boundaries of what is deemed moral within certain society
>patterns, I must confess I am often discomforted by the friendly approach
>of Delany to characters that are criminals, not to society per se, as a
>system of authority and hierarchy, but to plain other people. The casual
>portrayal of rapists (who make a methodology and almost profession of
>such abuse) sometimes strikes me as going beyond intellectual curiosity
>or desire to explore mindsets, into outright fascination. I have not given
>it the detailed reading and critical analysis it may need for accurate
>commentary, but my distaste lingers.
>
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Steve M  wrote:
>>  At 12:01 PM -0400 10/17/11, [email protected] wrote:
>>>  Delany, like Wright, is a highly civilzed man, though not a
>>>  product of the dire circumstances of the latter, so that, whatever he
>>>  has experienced in the Unlicensed Zone, he wouldn't do well with real
>>>  criminals. He's probably been around thugs, as I have, and hopefully
>>>  he'd be smart enough to see them as the enemy.
>>
>>  Somehow, having read Heavenly Breakfast, and Time Square Red/Blue, I
>>  doubt "enemy" or "thugs" are the words he would choose for the people
>>  you characterize thus. I'm not saying he would embrace them as
>>  comrades in arms--that seems equally unlikely. The thugs and enemy of
>>  Times Square Red/Blue, such as they are, would be the financial and
>>  real estate speculators who robbed the Times Square area of its
>>  street life.
>>
>>  You have always seemed to proceed from an essentially binary
>>  conception of the world (and especially of types of people) that
>>  seems frankly at odds with the the sort of complexity that seems to
>>  energize Delany's work.  The circumstances of Hasler's death in "The
>>  Man Man" when finally revealed, make choosing clear "enemies" or
>>  "thugs" problematic at best.
>>
>>  And it's clear that the "thugs" of S"tars in My Pocket..." are the
>>  Thant family--not the inscrutible xlv or even the assassin on Marq's
>>  initial flight home. Indeed, Marq (and the book) see him as someone
>>  to whom one should give a wide berth, but not the "enemy."
>>
>>  At 12:01 PM -0400 10/17/11, [email protected] wrote:
>>>  Real criminality is not remotely
>>>  oppositional.
>>
>>  I think you also simplify a complex question here--one that Delany
>>  explores in "Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones"
>>  which suggests that most criminality (and by extension most art) is
>>  not oppositional in any effective sense. It neither tries nor
>>  succeeds in shaking up the social structures it weaves in and out of.
>>  Indeed: It depends on the stability of those structures. Disruptive
>>  criminality (and art) are intentionally (and sometimes effectively)
>>  oppositional. The criminals who want to game systems are different
>>  from those who want to destroy them. (This is how the Prohbition-era
>>  rum-runners, who depended on Prohibition to keep prices and profits
>>  high, are different from those who participated in the Underground
>>  Railway for slaves, though both were criminal.)
>>
>>  That is what Maud Hinkle is hinting at in "Time Considered..." And
>>  while Delany's later work seems to move away from that simple
>>  romantic view of the criminal, the changes are not so much to deny
>>  the observations there as to simply deromanticize the criminal and
>>  explore the ways in which criminality is in fact determined by the
>>  structures of non-criminal society and necessary to and interwoven
>>  with it. The smuggler in the Neveryon series is a criminal but
>>  necessary--the legitimate markets would not function without him. His
>>  role is determined, and the occasional prosecutions of smugglers are
>>  meant not to eliminate the practice but to keep it in check at the
>>  necessary level. Meanwhile Gorgik's disruptive criminality, once he
>>  starts freeing slaves, makes him the object of active pursuit, until
>>  the later Neveryon novels, when his role becomes integrated into and
>>  necessary to those structures.
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------
>>
>>  == Posted to delany-list, hosted at yahoo groups ==
>>  == A mailing list for the discussion of the works of Samuel R.
>>  Delany. ==Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>== Posted to delany-list, hosted at yahoo groups ==
>== A mailing list for the discussion of the works of Samuel R. 
>Delany. ==Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>